Surely you support the system that kept Ukraine well-fed, industrialized and at peace with the neighboring sister region, which maintained Ukrainian presidents of the entire Union such as Khrushchev and Brezhnev, and whose dissolution led to Ukraine becoming the poorest country in Europe?
Well no I was commenting on that specific part. It’s an interesting what if to consider if hardline communists hadn’t prevented the New Union Treaty, if we might still have that new union and what their ideology would be.
The question asked in the 1991 Soviet Union Referendum was “Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any ethnicity will be fully guaranteed?” It would have drastically reformed the Soviet Union if it had succeeded. And funnily enough, it was a coup by hardliners in the communist party that prevented the reforms (New Union Treaty). This coup, while not successful in seizing power, ultimately lead to the Soviet government losing influence, which in turn resulted in its dissolution. By the time the Supreme Soviet voted to formally dissolve the Soviet Union, it had de-facto already ceased to exist.
The declaration also proclaimed that the republic has intent to become “a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs,”
Surely then you agree that the coming Ukrainian capitalist government violated the Ukrainian popular will by allowing NATO troops to be stationed in Ukraine more than a decade ago as confirmed by Jen Stoltenberg?
You mentioned nothing about the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, only focusing on technicalities over referenda. My question stands: do you support the regime change that led to the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, the war in Ukraine, and which prematurely ended the lives of millions of Ukrainians purely through economic destruction? Or do you want to focus on bickering over violated referenda instead of the material living conditions of people?
Surely then you agree that the coming Ukrainian capitalist government violated the Ukrainian popular will by allowing NATO troops to be stationed in Ukraine more than a decade ago as confirmed by Jen Stoltenberg?
You mentioned nothing about the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, only focusing on technicalities over referenda.
Because there’s nothing to say about it other than that it was bad. And I honestly don’t get what point you’re trying to make. The Ukrainian people, along with ~70% of the Soviet Union, voted to reform the Soviet Union. Hardliners in the Communist Party staged a coup which stopped the New Union Treaty from being signed. Afterwards, the Soviet Union fell apart, and was then formally dissolved.
And when the Crimean annexation by Russia took place, where was the referendum to allow NATO troops? Or does the government suddenly get the unilateral decision-making power when it comes to NATO?
Because there’s nothing to say about it other than that it was bad
Yes, there is plenty to say, actually. You could, for example, stop pretending that you actually do care about the well-being of Ukrainian people, since you apparently have no mention of the millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991 and kept happening as Ukraine became the poorest country in Europe. You could admit that you only care about Ukrainians suffering now because the war happens to be against the geopolitical enemy of your country.
If you gave one flying fuck about the well-being of Ukrainians, you’d be supporting communism and the Soviet Union right now, since its disintegration led to the worst humanitarian crisis the country has seen since the Nazis invaded it, and to an ever-ongoing disintegration of public services which led to millions more premature deaths than the illegal Russian invasion. You would be complaining about Russian capitalism which is the one that invaded Ukraine, and you’d understand that there was no such war during Soviet times. It is precisely capitalism that brought all of this to Ukraine, and if you cared genuinely about Ukrainians and wished the best for them instead of using them as a pawn for your media-induced hatred of Russia, you’d wish for the USSR never to have fallen.
You’ve shown us in other comments that you’ve done no reading on the topic to the point that you don’t even bother to understand the difference between income and wealth, and you make up on-the-spot assumptions from your ill-informed, poorly-read, west-propagandized version of the topic. The problem isn’t that you do this, the problem is that you do this while claiming to be a leftist/anarchist. I’ll tell you something: if you, as a leftist/anarchist, share 90% of your opinion about a geopolitical enemy of the USA with the CIA, you’re doing something wrong.
Yes, there is plenty to say, actually. You could, for example, stop pretending that you actually do care about the well-being of Ukrainian people, since you apparently have no mention of the millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991 and kept happening as Ukraine became the poorest country in Europe. You could admit that you only care about Ukrainians suffering now because the war happens to be against the geopolitical enemy of your country.
The hardliners of the communist party prevented the needed reforms to prevent the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Unions, which would have prevented, or at least mitigated, the “millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991”. And if Lenin hadn’t betrayed the revolution, we wouldn’t have had the Holodomor. The Soviet Union fucked Ukraine first through malice, then through incompetence.
If you gave one flying fuck about the well-being of Ukrainians, you’d be supporting communism and the Soviet Union right now, since its disintegration led to the worst humanitarian crisis the country has seen since the Nazis invaded it, and to an ever-ongoing disintegration of public services which led to millions more premature deaths than the illegal Russian invasion. You would be complaining about Russian capitalism which is the one that invaded Ukraine, and you’d understand that there was no such war during Soviet times. It is precisely capitalism that brought all of this to Ukraine, and if you cared genuinely about Ukrainians and wished the best for them instead of using them as a pawn for your media-induced hatred of Russia, you’d wish for the USSR never to have fallen.
The one mostly responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union is the communist party of the Soviet Union.
You’ve shown us in other comments that you’ve done no reading on the topic to the point that you don’t even bother to understand the difference between income and wealth, and you make up on-the-spot assumptions from your ill-informed, poorly-read, west-propagandized version of the topic. The problem isn’t that you do this, the problem is that you do this while claiming to be a leftist/anarchist. I’ll tell you something: if you, as a leftist/anarchist, share 90% of your opinion about a geopolitical enemy of the USA with the CIA, you’re doing something wrong.
At least I’m coherent, unlike you. The fault for the collapse of the Soviet Unions lies by its incompetent government.
So everything bad that happens during communism is communism’s fault, and everything bad that happens after communism is also communism’s fault, gotcha.
Btw, keep in mind that you’re being a CIA pawn when you make such political use of “Holodomor”:
It’s a western-promoted propaganda word to refer to the Soviet Famine of the collectivization effort, and it’s used to blow over the Russian and Central-Asian deaths from the famine as if only Ukrainians had suffered it. It attempts to turn an unfortunate hunger during the first successful nation-wide land collectivization in human history into some sort of manufactured genocide of Ukrainians now that they can be used as a token to promote hate on communism and Russians. Do you also have a special scary word to refer to, e.g., the Bengal Famine in India, or is it something reserved to the enemies of capitalism?
So everything bad that happens during communism is communism’s fault, and everything bad that happens after communism is also communism’s fault, gotcha.
I’m blaming the leadership of the Soviet Union, not communism. The Soviet Union wasn’t communist, and neither was the communist party of the Soviet Union. And yes, if you cause a disaster through incompetence, then You’re also responsible to the long term consequences caused by said disaster.
Now, the holodomor happened 220 years ago. No, wait, it was 1932-1933. Okay, I realize 1800-2022 is the default time range, still, it’s quite pointless to look for mentions of a concept in text from before it happened. Secondly, since the Holodomor refers to a specific event, is is capitalized.
Here is the graph with your methodical errors corrected.
It attempts to turn an unfortunate hunger during the first successful nation-wide land collectivization in human history
succesful
Dude, 3.5 million deaths (That’s the low estimate, by the way) through famine does not qualify as “successful nation-wide land collectivization”.
How so? I already dispelled your erroneous, CIA-manufactured understanding of ownership of the means of production in the USSR and gave you my sources, to which you haven’t replied other than by making up stuff on the spot. Would you care to argue otherwise from data?
Here is the graph with your methodical errors corrected
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the caps-sensitivity of the Ngram viewer, good point. Regardless, you do notice that your graph proves further my point, right? That “Holodomor” is a word essentially unused from 1930 to 2000, and now it grows in usage each year as a consecuence of unaware pro-capitalist propagandists like you. I repeat: do you use such scary words for capitalist-inflicted famines, or is it something you reserve for punching to your left?
Dude, 3.5 million deaths (That’s the low estimate, by the way) through famine does not qualify as “successful nation-wide land collectivization”.
Depends. Famines were commonplace in the Russian Empire, and it’s to be expected that in a country in preindustrial agricultural production famines would happen. Ultimately there were mistakes during the land collectivization that led to unnecessary degrees of famine, true, but remember, it was the only successful attempt in the sense that it did collectivize land in a long-lasting and widespread manner, which had been attempted countless times over the past 5 millenia with no success until that point and many deaths in every attempt, e.g. the Gracchi brothers already attempted land collectivization in ancient Rome.
The collectivization of agriculture in the USSR enabled the first ever case of a state-owned industrial revolution, which managed to make the country grow by 10-15% YEARLY in economic output. The former Russian Empire went from being a pre-capitalist agrarian society to becoming an industrializing nation in 10 years, and that wasn’t out of desire, it was out of necessity. The 1929 collectivization coincides in time (not by coincidence) with the first 5-year plan, which set in motion the industrialization of the USSR that would lead to an increase of life expectancy from 30 years of age to 60 in 30 years, even with the most devastating war in history inbetween those years. Not only did it solve hunger forever and allow for widespread healthcare, it also enabled the industrial revolution that ended up DEFEATING NAZISM. Nazis had plans to murder and forcibly reallocate all Slavic and many other peoples between Germany and Urals, which amounts to hundreds of millions of people. By defeating Nazism, the industrial revolution of the USSR, kicked off in 1929, effectively saved TENS OF MILLIONS of lives from genocide, and then gave those very people healthcare and guaranteed food that DOUBLED life expectancy in a formerly feudal backwards empire. For reference, a comparable country in economic situation in 1930 would be Brazil, which by 1965 had a life expectancy of 55 years, where at that point USSR had raised it to 68. Multiply by 200 million lives, how many tens of millions of lives saved is that?
Now tell me: knowing how many tens if not hundreds of millions of lives were saved by the 1929 collectivization and industrial plans, do you still deny its success?
You seem to care so much about Ukrainians. Surely then you support the Soviet Union, which in 1991 71.5% of Ukrainians voted to uphold and whose antidemocratic dissolution led to the worst humanitarian crisis in the history of post-WW2 Europe:
Surely you support the system that kept Ukraine well-fed, industrialized and at peace with the neighboring sister region, which maintained Ukrainian presidents of the entire Union such as Khrushchev and Brezhnev, and whose dissolution led to Ukraine becoming the poorest country in Europe?
After hardliners in Moscow made the New Union Treaty (that people voted for) fail, Ukraine voted to be independent.
No comment on the millions of Ukrainian deaths and lives ruined in the transition away from communism?
Well no I was commenting on that specific part. It’s an interesting what if to consider if hardline communists hadn’t prevented the New Union Treaty, if we might still have that new union and what their ideology would be.
The question asked in the 1991 Soviet Union Referendum was “Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any ethnicity will be fully guaranteed?” It would have drastically reformed the Soviet Union if it had succeeded. And funnily enough, it was a coup by hardliners in the communist party that prevented the reforms (New Union Treaty). This coup, while not successful in seizing power, ultimately lead to the Soviet government losing influence, which in turn resulted in its dissolution. By the time the Supreme Soviet voted to formally dissolve the Soviet Union, it had de-facto already ceased to exist.
And while 71.5% of Ukrainians voted in favor of the New Union Treaty, 81.7% voted for an independent Ukraine.
From your latter referendum:
Surely then you agree that the coming Ukrainian capitalist government violated the Ukrainian popular will by allowing NATO troops to be stationed in Ukraine more than a decade ago as confirmed by Jen Stoltenberg?
You mentioned nothing about the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, only focusing on technicalities over referenda. My question stands: do you support the regime change that led to the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, the war in Ukraine, and which prematurely ended the lives of millions of Ukrainians purely through economic destruction? Or do you want to focus on bickering over violated referenda instead of the material living conditions of people?
I wonder if something happened to make them change their mind on neutrality
Because there’s nothing to say about it other than that it was bad. And I honestly don’t get what point you’re trying to make. The Ukrainian people, along with ~70% of the Soviet Union, voted to reform the Soviet Union. Hardliners in the Communist Party staged a coup which stopped the New Union Treaty from being signed. Afterwards, the Soviet Union fell apart, and was then formally dissolved.
And when the Crimean annexation by Russia took place, where was the referendum to allow NATO troops? Or does the government suddenly get the unilateral decision-making power when it comes to NATO?
Yes, there is plenty to say, actually. You could, for example, stop pretending that you actually do care about the well-being of Ukrainian people, since you apparently have no mention of the millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991 and kept happening as Ukraine became the poorest country in Europe. You could admit that you only care about Ukrainians suffering now because the war happens to be against the geopolitical enemy of your country.
If you gave one flying fuck about the well-being of Ukrainians, you’d be supporting communism and the Soviet Union right now, since its disintegration led to the worst humanitarian crisis the country has seen since the Nazis invaded it, and to an ever-ongoing disintegration of public services which led to millions more premature deaths than the illegal Russian invasion. You would be complaining about Russian capitalism which is the one that invaded Ukraine, and you’d understand that there was no such war during Soviet times. It is precisely capitalism that brought all of this to Ukraine, and if you cared genuinely about Ukrainians and wished the best for them instead of using them as a pawn for your media-induced hatred of Russia, you’d wish for the USSR never to have fallen.
You’ve shown us in other comments that you’ve done no reading on the topic to the point that you don’t even bother to understand the difference between income and wealth, and you make up on-the-spot assumptions from your ill-informed, poorly-read, west-propagandized version of the topic. The problem isn’t that you do this, the problem is that you do this while claiming to be a leftist/anarchist. I’ll tell you something: if you, as a leftist/anarchist, share 90% of your opinion about a geopolitical enemy of the USA with the CIA, you’re doing something wrong.
The hardliners of the communist party prevented the needed reforms to prevent the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Unions, which would have prevented, or at least mitigated, the “millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991”. And if Lenin hadn’t betrayed the revolution, we wouldn’t have had the Holodomor. The Soviet Union fucked Ukraine first through malice, then through incompetence.
The one mostly responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union is the communist party of the Soviet Union.
At least I’m coherent, unlike you. The fault for the collapse of the Soviet Unions lies by its incompetent government.
So everything bad that happens during communism is communism’s fault, and everything bad that happens after communism is also communism’s fault, gotcha.
Btw, keep in mind that you’re being a CIA pawn when you make such political use of “Holodomor”:
It’s a western-promoted propaganda word to refer to the Soviet Famine of the collectivization effort, and it’s used to blow over the Russian and Central-Asian deaths from the famine as if only Ukrainians had suffered it. It attempts to turn an unfortunate hunger during the first successful nation-wide land collectivization in human history into some sort of manufactured genocide of Ukrainians now that they can be used as a token to promote hate on communism and Russians. Do you also have a special scary word to refer to, e.g., the Bengal Famine in India, or is it something reserved to the enemies of capitalism?
I’m blaming the leadership of the Soviet Union, not communism. The Soviet Union wasn’t communist, and neither was the communist party of the Soviet Union. And yes, if you cause a disaster through incompetence, then You’re also responsible to the long term consequences caused by said disaster.
Now, the holodomor happened 220 years ago. No, wait, it was 1932-1933. Okay, I realize 1800-2022 is the default time range, still, it’s quite pointless to look for mentions of a concept in text from before it happened. Secondly, since the Holodomor refers to a specific event, is is capitalized.
Here is the graph with your methodical errors corrected.
Dude, 3.5 million deaths (That’s the low estimate, by the way) through famine does not qualify as “successful nation-wide land collectivization”.
How so? I already dispelled your erroneous, CIA-manufactured understanding of ownership of the means of production in the USSR and gave you my sources, to which you haven’t replied other than by making up stuff on the spot. Would you care to argue otherwise from data?
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the caps-sensitivity of the Ngram viewer, good point. Regardless, you do notice that your graph proves further my point, right? That “Holodomor” is a word essentially unused from 1930 to 2000, and now it grows in usage each year as a consecuence of unaware pro-capitalist propagandists like you. I repeat: do you use such scary words for capitalist-inflicted famines, or is it something you reserve for punching to your left?
Depends. Famines were commonplace in the Russian Empire, and it’s to be expected that in a country in preindustrial agricultural production famines would happen. Ultimately there were mistakes during the land collectivization that led to unnecessary degrees of famine, true, but remember, it was the only successful attempt in the sense that it did collectivize land in a long-lasting and widespread manner, which had been attempted countless times over the past 5 millenia with no success until that point and many deaths in every attempt, e.g. the Gracchi brothers already attempted land collectivization in ancient Rome.
The collectivization of agriculture in the USSR enabled the first ever case of a state-owned industrial revolution, which managed to make the country grow by 10-15% YEARLY in economic output. The former Russian Empire went from being a pre-capitalist agrarian society to becoming an industrializing nation in 10 years, and that wasn’t out of desire, it was out of necessity. The 1929 collectivization coincides in time (not by coincidence) with the first 5-year plan, which set in motion the industrialization of the USSR that would lead to an increase of life expectancy from 30 years of age to 60 in 30 years, even with the most devastating war in history inbetween those years. Not only did it solve hunger forever and allow for widespread healthcare, it also enabled the industrial revolution that ended up DEFEATING NAZISM. Nazis had plans to murder and forcibly reallocate all Slavic and many other peoples between Germany and Urals, which amounts to hundreds of millions of people. By defeating Nazism, the industrial revolution of the USSR, kicked off in 1929, effectively saved TENS OF MILLIONS of lives from genocide, and then gave those very people healthcare and guaranteed food that DOUBLED life expectancy in a formerly feudal backwards empire. For reference, a comparable country in economic situation in 1930 would be Brazil, which by 1965 had a life expectancy of 55 years, where at that point USSR had raised it to 68. Multiply by 200 million lives, how many tens of millions of lives saved is that?
Now tell me: knowing how many tens if not hundreds of millions of lives were saved by the 1929 collectivization and industrial plans, do you still deny its success?